About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
pakistan didn't do enough, if much avenue anything to help find usama bin laden and maybe even protected him and this morning relations between that key u.s. ally and partner in the fight against terror, is standing on even shakier ground. a report this morning in the "new york times" says the u.s. could suspend a big chunk of military aid to pakistan. and it is a lot of our money, $800 million, in security assistance. peter doocy live in washington with the details. are we looking to cut off the military of pakistan completely? >> reporter: no, but, as you said, "new york times" is reporting that we might cut $800 million out of the 2-plus billion we give pakistan in security assistance and that is because the administration does not apparently think they are being helpful in catching militant and, probably because pakistan kicked 100 of our army trainers out of the country the last few weeks and it comes very very, shortly after the strain on the u.s. relationship which was exposed following our raid on their soil to kill bin laden and earlier this week the new secretary of defense, pa
signal nato weakness, implications in places like syria and egypt and have implications like pakistan, as well. a lot rides on this more than just getting rid of khadafy, who yet again in past days has called for a return to terrorism something he used before and is threatening again. one more reason to get rid of him. >> gregg: last question -- there is a new study by the eisenhower research project and it concluded that u.s. involvement in afghanistan, pakistan and iraq has cost up to 4 trillion dollars over the past decade. your reaction to that? >> i think that study is badly flawed for a number of reasons. it's counting costs we would have incurred anyway for the existence of the military. it does focus on the potential explosion of medical costs. that is something i think even defenders of the defense department have said for some time that is an area of cost cutting we ought to be looking at. badly flawed but there are points worth taking into account going forward. >> gregg: unless anyone thinks we forgets, more than 6,000 american lives in various wars over the past decade, h
al-qaeda move money and fighters in to pakistan and afghanistan. here now, a spokesman for four u.s. ambassadors. thanks for being with us. we known about their support of terror groups throughout the years, hezbollah and others but what about al-qaeda is this is the first time we've had solid evidence? >> it's actually not the first time. the four individuals that were designated in 2009. don't forget that the 9/11 commission report called out this phenomenon, said that al-qaeda and iran are working together. i think thursday's announcement is good news. we should congratulate david cohenfor making this announcement and pushing through this decision. i'm sure it was very difficult. the state department under secretary clinton has not been so forth right. hopefully by designating the six individuals that we can move the diplomacy and force a lost these countries that are protecting terrorists by not enforcing banking laws. certainly the u.n. has asked them to enforce banking laws. >> gregg: i'm glad you brought up the united nations. when it comes to fighting terrorism is the unit
the border with pakistan. this is an area they could turn over. they are doing it and it's a test case. canadians ceased their combat operations last week. they are going to replace their combat troops with 950 trainers. everybody is looking at the exit since the united states announceded we're pulling out. >> jamie: 10,000 of our troops will leave at the end of this year. and that has begun. how is it going? >> it's too early to tell. what happened is 650 troops left. they will not be replaced. that is the first increment of the 10,000 that you mentioned. so it will be, hopefully it will be more of a gradual reduction, so that we can meter the troops out as we take account of what is really happening on the ground. >> jamie: several generals recommended a slower withdrawal schedule than what president obama wants and is currently going to get. do you think we'll hear from them again? or in the military way will they just do what they have been asked to do? >> the thing about the military professionals, you have two options. you can execute the orders as best you can or resign. you don
and pakistan and officials at the iranian mission in new york are calling the allegations totally baseless. and, our next guest, see if he agrees, ambassador john bolton, former u.n. ambassador and a fox news contributor. baseless or not. >> good morning to you, this is something many people have felt was going on for some time and the treasury department's own announcement says they can track iran's assistance to al qaeda back for five years, and i suspect it went on longer than that and, it has a dramatic effect, i think, on what we are all talking about, today, as we look at this debt ceiling issue. you had al milladmiral mullen o with the troops in afghanistan and, with the efforts in afghanistan, and to see the full efforts and larger defense budget now at risk in these debt ceiling talks, i find it absolutely unbelievable. >> let's talk more about that timing, again, the first time our country has formally accused iran of this, and as you said, rightfully so, this is rumored for years, what do you make of the timing? >> well, i think this is probably something driven by internal treasury
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)